- 9 -
and 544, contends that “unity of ownership” principles should not
be applied without a clear directive from Congress.
The estate’s reliance on those cases and statutes is
misplaced because they address situations in which property owned
by one person, or entity, is to be attributed to another. In
contrast, Aldo, at the moment of death, had the power to appoint
the stock held by Trust A, just as he had the power to determine
who would receive the stock he owned outright. In Propstra, Mr.
Propstra’s estate included an undivided 1/2 interest in real
estate parcels owned, as community property, by Mr. Propstra and
his wife. Propstra v. United States, supra at 1250. The court
concluded that it was not reasonable to assume Mr. Propstra’s
estate and Mr. Propstra’s spouse would sell their respective
community property interests together to maximize their
respective economic returns. Id. at 1251-1252. Under such
circumstances, the courts, absent statutory authority, have
consistently rejected respondent’s attempts to aggregate stock
interests held by family members. Id. at 1252; see also Estate
of Bright v. United States, supra. We, however, are not
confronted with two individuals acting independently and having
potentially different interests and motivations. Aldo alone
controlled the ultimate disposition of both blocks of stock.
Thus, attribution rules simply are not relevant. We sustain
respondent’s determination.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011